Mayor & Aldermen of Paterson v. Mayor & Aldermen of Jersey City
Mayor & Aldermen of Paterson v. Mayor & Aldermen of Jersey City
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The only objection urged to these proceedings is that Jersey City is seeking to condemn property already devoted to a public use. This is not an accurate statement of the ease. What Jersey City is seeking to acquire is a right to a joint user of running water. It is true that the use to which Jersey City is to put the water involves its abstraction from the stream, while the use to which Paterson puts it is for purposes of pleasure and recreation in connection with its parks, involving the use of the flow only. But as long as the legislature authorizes in response to public necessities, the abstraction of water from a river for a municipal water-supply, this use is as lawful as the other. The case therefore resembles the cases of joint user of a common easement. Morris and Essex Railroad Co. v. Central Railroad Co., 2 Vroom 205; National Docks, &c., Co. v. United Companies, 24 Id. 217. We need not consider the relative importance of supplying Jersey City with an absolute necessity and the importance of allowing
The proceedings are affirmed, with costs.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF PATERSON v. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY
- Status
- Published